Abstract
Synthetic biology has emerged in the past decade when advanced biotechnological methods have increased the ability to design and build robust and predictable biological systems using engineering design principles. Synthetic biology is expected to contribute to solving the world’s most significant challenges including energy supply, disease control, or even the remediation of polluted sites. Nevertheless, possible societal implications and risk analyses have been topics of scientific debate since its very beginning and synthetic biology has become a subject for Technology Assessment. Following the tradition of social constructivist studies of science and technology, the notions of public participation and engagement become prominent in order to answer the question of how to govern emerging technologies like synthetic biology. This is reinforced in the context of the concept of responsible research and innovation, which explicitly asks for more public participation aiming on avoidance of conflicts and enabling successful innovations that are adapted to societal values and needs. However, still little is known about synthetic biology in the public which is demonstrated for the chase of Germany. Moreover, this chapter considers why and how public engagement can contribute to the assessment and governance of synthetic biology and what should be considered when using the according methods.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In the literature “boundary objects” (Star and Griesemer 1989; Guston 2001) or “umbrella terms” (Rip and Voß 2013) describe terms that are not precisely defined. Therefore, they are vague enough to be used by quite diverse groups or disciplines and allow for interpretations. At the same time they are sufficiently defined to keep some kind of global identity and guarantee a shared understanding.
- 2.
More information can be found at http://biobricks.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 3.
Systems biology is an interdisciplinary field that combines quantitative data generation and mathematical modelling with biomedical laboratory experiments to elucidate general principles governing the properties of complex systems that give rise to biological functions.
- 4.
This becomes even more evident in the interpretation of synthetic biology for military use as illustrated in the Official US Department of Defence Science Blog “Armed with Science”, where a programme manager of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, Justin Gallivan, states: “By making these systems more robust, stable and safe, BRICS seeks to harness the full range of capabilities at the intersection of engineering and biology”. http://science.dodlive.mil/2014/08/12/the-future-of-synthetic-biology-applications. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 5.
More information can be found at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/nest.htm. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 6.
In the case of synthetic biology, it is essential to consider the precautionary principle: Once “synthetic organisms” as products of the “synthetic biology technology” have been released, they cannot be retrieved or even traced.
- 7.
EU27 includes the member states of the European Union as of June 2013.
- 8.
More information available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6655/synbiosurvey2013.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 9.
Steurer (in this volume) presents the results of this kind of method—citizens panels and focus groups—for analyses on public debate/perceptions in Austria.
- 10.
For more information see: http://www.synenergene.eu/. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 11.
That applies only if on assumes that media consumers take up the presented topic as well as the framing used by the journalists (Brüggemann 2014). Here, it is worth mentioning that the assessment of media effects on the recipient side regarding the consequences for opinion-forming or decision-making is accordingly demanding and maybe even impossible (Bonfadelli and Friemel 2011).
- 12.
Although the print media is still the number one information resource, there is a shift towards a more mixed usage of resources including TV and the Internet (Eurobarometer 2013). Access to the latter is much more time-consuming and cost-intensive and their analysis much more elaborate; scientific approaches are still in a rather experimental state (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski 2010).
- 13.
The international Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition is a worldwide synthetic biology competition for young talents (university and high school students) that aims at raising attention for the field. More information at www.igem.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 14.
A quantitative and qualitative analysis for the period between August 31, 2011 and December 31, 2014 was done in the framework of the EA Summer School as described in Lehmkuhl (2011, p. 20): Using the GENIOS database and the German search term “synthetische Biologie”.
- 15.
The Gartner Hype Cycle represents a “graphic representation of the maturity and adoption of technologies and applications, and how they are potentially relevant to solving real business problems and exploiting new opportunities”. More information can be found at http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp and http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/aufmerksamkeits-kurven-die-hype-zyklen-neuer-technologien-a-443717.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 16.
Ancillotti and Eriksson (this volume) show for Swedish and Italian press, which also covered synthetic biology more extensively in 2010, that this event was indeed the main topic in that year.
- 17.
For limitations of this approach see footnote 11.
- 18.
Still there are no indications that this is the case: David Shukman “Will synthetic biology become a GM-style battleground?” BBC News, July 21, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23274175. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 19.
“Linear” referrers here to classic innovation theories which locates the creative potential solely at the side of the researches and developers. The public as potential users is reflected by the market that either accepts or rejects the invention. In more recent theories address the interconnectivity of today’s innovation processes.
- 20.
More information can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ and http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 21.
For a persuasive example see Molyneux-Hodgson and Balmer (2014) who analyse the performance of a synthetic biology research programme that sought to address issues of innovation in the water industry. They found that the conceptualisation of public actors as consumers who are ignorant of the complexities of water and its true value became an innovation barrier.
References
Albrecht S (2014) Synergene: responsible research implementieren—Zur Umsetzung von RRI am Beispiel eines Projekts zur Synthetischen Biologie. Presentation at the NTA6/TA14 Conference, Vienna (June 6, 2014). http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/fileadmin/redaktion/Veranstaltungen/konferenzen/ta14/ta14-albrecht.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston D (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ et al (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000
Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16(1):79–95
Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6:533–543
Bernauer T, Meins E (2003) Technological revolution meets policy and the market: Explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. Eur J Polit Res 42(5):643–683
Bogner A (2012) The paradox of participation experiments. Sci Technol Human Values 37(5):506–527
Boldt J, Müller O, Maio G (2009) Synthetische Biologie: Eine ethisch-philosophische Analyse. BBL, Bern
Bonfadelli H, Friemel TN (2011) Medienwirkungsforschung: Grundlagen und theoretische Perspektiven. UVK, Konstanz
Böschen S (2005) Vom Technology zum Science Assessment: (Nicht-)Wissenskonflikte als konzeptionelle Herausforderung. Technologiefolgenabschätzung—Theorie und. Praxis 14(3):122–127
Brüggemann M (2014) Between frame setting and frame sending: how journalists contribute to news frames. Commun Theory 24(1):61–82
Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ (2014) A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:381–390
Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Open University Press, London
GEC: German Ethic Council (2011) Werkstatt Leben. Bedeutung der Synthetischen Biologie für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Documentation of a public conference at 23 Nov 2011 in Mannheim/Germany. http://www.ethikrat.org/veranstaltungen/weitere-veranstaltungen/werkstatt-leben. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Dana GV, Kuiken T, Rejeski D, Snow AA (2012) Synthetic biology: four steps to avoid a synthetic-biology disaster. Nature 483(7387):29
EPTA: European Parliamentary Technology Assessment (2011) Synthetic Biology. EPTA Briefing Note No. 1 (November 2011). http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/research/u9800/EPTA_briefingnote_A4.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
ETC Group: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (2007): Extreme genetic engineering. An introduction to synthetic biology. January 2007. http://www.etcgroup.org/ sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/602/01/synbioreportweb.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Eurobarometer (2010) Special Eurobarometer 341/Wave 73.1—Biotechnology. Report. Fieldwork: January–February 2010. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Eurobarometer (2013) Special Eurobarometer 401—Responsible research and innovation (RRI), Science and Technology. Report. Fieldwork: April–May 2013. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_401_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
European Commission (2005) Synthetic biology: applying engineering to biology—Report of a NEST high-level expert group. EUR 21796. European Commission/DG Research, Brussels
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755
Fussenegger M (2014) Kunst oder künstlich? Chancen, Risiken und Perspektiven der Synthetischen Biologie. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2 Jul 2014. http://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/biologie/chancen-risiken-und-perspektiven-der-synthetischen-biologie-1.18334868. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change? European Commission/Directorate General for Research, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Gerhards J, Neidhardt F, Rucht D (1998) Zwischen Palaver und Diskurs. Strukturen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung am Beispiel der deutschen Diskussion zur Abtreibung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London
Gill B (1994) Die Vorverlegung der Folgenerkenntnis. Science Assessment als Selbstreflexion der Wissenschaft. Soziale Welt 45(4):430–454
Grunwald A (2010) Technikfolgenabschätzung—eine Einführung. 2. Auflage. Edition Sigma (Gesellschaft—Technik—Umwelt, Neue Folge 1), Berlin
Grunwald A (2012) Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung. Plädoyer für eine „Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung“. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und. Praxis 21(2):10–15
Grunwald A (2014) Responsible research and innovation: an emerging issue in research policy rooted in the debate on nanotechnology. In: Arnaldi S, Ferrari A, Magaudda P, Marin F (eds) Responsibility in nanotechnology development, pp 191–205
Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408
Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109
Habermas J (1992) Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M
Hahn J, Seitz SB, Weinberger N (2014) What can TA learn from ‘the people’? A case study of the German citizens’ dialogues on future technologies. In: Michalek TC, Hebakova L, Hennen L, Scherz C, Nierling L, Hahn J (eds) Technology assessment and policy areas of great transitions, Prague, pp 165–170
Hand E (2010) Citizen science: people power. Nature 466(7307):685–687
Haslinger J, Hocke P, Hauser C (2014) Ausgewogene Wissenschaftsberichterstattung der Qualitätspresse? Eine Inhaltsanalyse zur Nanoberichterstattung in repräsentativen Medien Österreichs, Deutschlands und der Schweiz. In: Gazsó A, Haslinger J (eds) Nano Risiko Governance. Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit Nanotechnologien. Springer, Vienna, pp 283–310
Heil R, Dewald U, Fleischer T, Hahn J, Jahnel J, Seitz SB (2014) Konzeptionelle Überlegungen für ein Forschungsvorhaben zur Klärung des Verhältnisses von Responsible (Research and) Innovation und TA. Talk at the international conference NTA6-TA14 “Responsible Innovation. Neue Impulse für die Technikfolgenabschätzung? (02–04.06.2014) Vienna, Austria
Hellström T (2003) Systemic innovation and risk: technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technol Soc 25(3):369–384
Hennen L (2012) Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis Prax 9(1–2):27–41
Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and and sustainable development. Routledge, London
Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223–244
Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Public Underst Sci 21(2):188–194
Kiran AH (2012) Does responsible innovation presuppose design instrumentalism? Examining the case of telecare at home in the Netherlands. Technol Soc 34(3):216–226
Kollek R, Döring M (2012) TA-Implikationen der komplexen Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Technik. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis 21(2):4–9
König H, Frank D, Heil R, Coenen C (2013) Synthetic genomics and synthetic biology applications between hopes and concerns. Curr Genomics 14:11–24
Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. In: Poinat A (ed) Étude de biophysique. Peiresc, Paris
Lehmkuhl M (2011) Die Repräsentation der synthetischen Biologie in der deutschen Presse. Abschlussbericht einer Inhaltsanalyse von 23 deutschen Pressetiteln. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin. http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/lehmkuhl-studie-synthetische-biologie.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Mitchelstein E, Boczkowski PJ (2010) Online news consumption research: an assessment of past work and an agenda for the future. New Media Soc 12:1085–1102
Molyneux-Hodgson S, Balmer AS (2014) Synthetic biology, water industry and the performance of an innovation barrier. Sci Public Policy 41(4):507–519
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons MT (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge
Pardo R, Engelhard M, Hagen K, Jørgensen RB, Rehbinder E, Schnieke A, Szmulewicz M, Thiele F (2009) The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. EMBO Rep 10(10):1069–1075
Parens E, Johnston J, Moses J (2009) Ethical issues in synthetic biology: an overview of the debates. 24 Jun 2009. http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6334/synbio3.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
Pei L, Gaisser S, Schmidt M (2012) Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organisations. Public Underst Sci 21(2):149–162
Philp JC, Ritchie RJ, Allan JEM (2013) Synthetic biology, the bioeconomy, and a societal quandary. Trends Biotechnol 31(5):269–272
Rabinow P, Bennett G (2009) Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):99–108
Radstake M, van den Heuvel-Vromans E, Jeucken N, Dortmans K, Nelis A (2009) Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. EMBO Rep 10(4):313–317
Rip A, Voß J-P (2013) Umbrella terms as a conduit in the governance of emerging science and technology. Sci Technol Innov Stud 9:39–59
Sauter A (2011) Synthetische Biologie: Finale Technisierung des Lebens—oder Etikettenschwindel? TAB-Brief 39:16–23
Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 57(1):9–20
Schot J, Rip A (1996) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 54:251–268
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580
Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 23(1):4–15
Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294
Sturgis P (2014) On the limits of public engagement for the governance of emerging technologies. Public Underst Sci 23(1):38–42
Szybalski W, Skalka A (1978) Nobel prizes and restriction enzymes. Gene 4:181–182
TA-SWISS (2012): Synthetische Biologie in der Gesellschaft. Eine neue Technologie in der öffentlichen Diskussion. https://www.ta-swiss.ch/projekte/biotechnologie-und-medizin/synthetische-biologie. Accessed 14 Aug 2014
ter Meulen V (2014) Time to settle the synthetic controversy. Nature 509:135
Torgersen H (2009) Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):9–17
Torgersen H, Schmidt M (2013) Frames and comparators: how might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures 48:44–54
van Doren D, Heyen NB (2014) Synthetic biology: too early for assessments? A review of synthetic biology assessments in Germany. Sci Public Policy 41(3):272–282
von Schomberg R (2013) A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 51–74
Walk H (2013) Herausforderungen für eine integrative Perspektive in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Klimaforschung. In: Knierim A, Baasch S, Gottschick M (eds) Partizipation und Klimawandel—Ansprüche, Konzepte und Umsetzung. Oekom Verlag, Munich, pp 21–35
Way JC, Collins JJ, Keasling JD, Silver PA (2014) Integrating biological redesign: where synthetic biology came from and where it needs to go. Cell 157(1):151–161
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seitz, S.B. (2016). Let’s Talk About… Synthetic Biology—Emerging Technologies and the Public. In: Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21087-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21088-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)